Curtis v Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2151
Gary Curtis
Law Firm / Organization
Self Represented
Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2151
Law Firm / Organization
Laxton Glass LLP
Lawyer(s)

Emily Schatzker

Del Property Management Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Laxton Glass LLP
Lawyer(s)

Emily Schatzker

Laney Choi of Del Property Management Inc.
Law Firm / Organization
Laxton Glass LLP
Lawyer(s)

Emily Schatzker

Paragon Security Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
McCague Borlack LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Turkienicz

Paragon Security Guard Decoyda Anthony Larsen
Law Firm / Organization
McCague Borlack LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Turkienicz

Larry Scolaro of Paragon Security Ltd.
Law Firm / Organization
McCague Borlack LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Turkienicz

Paragon Security Guard Colin “Doe”
Law Firm / Organization
McCague Borlack LLP
Lawyer(s)

Eric Turkienicz

Case Overview:

  • Motion: Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2151, Del Property Management Inc., several security guards, and others (defendants) sought an order requiring the plaintiff to post $60,000 as security for costs under Rules 56.01(1)(b) and 56.01(1)(e) of Ontario’s Rules of Civil Procedure.

Key Legal Points:

  1. Rule 56.01(1)(e) (Frivolous Action and Insufficient Assets):

    • Defendants argued the plaintiff's action was frivolous and that he lacked sufficient assets to cover costs.
    • The court found the plaintiff’s financial situation had changed after receiving a $945,257.44 judgment in April 2024, leaving him with significant funds in bank and investment accounts.
    • Result: Insufficient assets argument rejected.
  2. Rule 56.01(1)(b) (Duplicate Proceedings):

    • Defendants claimed the plaintiff had multiple proceedings for the same relief (e.g., another action against Toronto Police and related parties).
    • The court acknowledged overlap but ruled that such duplication does not automatically justify security for costs. The plaintiff demonstrated he had sufficient assets to pay costs if necessary.
  3. Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion:

    • The plaintiff sought to strike portions of the defendants' affidavits, alleging inaccuracies.
    • The court dismissed this motion as irrelevant to its decision.

Decision:

  • Defendants’ motion for security for costs was dismissed because the plaintiff showed sufficient assets to cover potential cost awards.
  • No costs awarded to either party, noting the defendants' reasonable basis for the motion and the plaintiff’s inappropriate conduct during cross-examinations.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
2151 2025 ONSC 395; CV-22-00688382
Civil litigation
Plaintiff